Talk:Open Game License v1.0a

From D&D Wiki

Let me begin by clearly stating: I am not a lawyer. That seems to be everyone's first question when the subject of the Open Gaming License or the d20 trademark arises. With that out of the way, I'll take a shot at explaining, in layman's terms, what this whole open gaming/d20 thing is and how it impacts the average Dungeons & Dragons player.

In order to understand why Wizards of the Coast would create the Open Gaming License we need to start with primary principles. Marcus Aurelius said, "Of all things ask, what does it intrinsically do?" Dungeons & Dragons is a game, and in order for a game to fulfill its function it must be played. Yet one of the primary reasons people report leaving the hobby is because they can't find anyone to play with. To increase the chance of finding someone to play the game with, you need to increase the network of players. Previous D&D business strategy promoted the use of aggressive legal strategies to keep anyone from publishing work that might be compatible with Dungeons & Dragons. In hindsight, this approach only encouraged players to create new game systems for their genres. As a result, new players brought in through those game systems were playing a game that was incompatible with the D&D system, which fragmented the paper-based roleplaying game genre.

There are those who've interpreted the Open Gaming License as a statement that Wizards wants only one gaming system -- d20 -- but that logic is faulty. In fact, even casual research of Wizard's D&D brand management strategy reveals a consistently stated belief that there will always be room for multiple game systems. But instead of a bunch of game systems that are close to D&D, there would be a few systems that vary widely.

The open gaming license (OGL) says, in a nutshell, that you can create any product you want using the core D&D mechanic (what we call the d20 system). You can change any rule you want, you can add any rule you want, you can cover any subject you want. The only thing that you can't do is keep anyone else from using the D&D rules you used or anything you derived from those rules. In other words, you can play with the blocks but you can't tell someone else that they can't play with the blocks as well. In exchange, you don't owe Wizards any money, and Wizards has no approval over your product

What does Wizards get out of this deal? In addition to expanding the network of D&D players, we also created a little trademarked "bug" (logo you can put on products) called "d20." We own this little logo. We get to say who uses this logo and what they can and can't do if they want to use this logo. What this logo means is, "This product is made with the d20 rules system." Everyone in the gaming community has seen this logo and can now identify it, so it has recognition value.

If you want to put this logo on your product, there are some basic ground rules, a few things you must and must not do. You must point people to the Player's Handbook, you must not present character creation rules, and you must use the basic terms of the d20 rules system unchanged (for example, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma). Now, just to be clear: You don't have to use the d20 logo on your product. You can simply use the Open Gaming License and ignore the whole d20 logo issue. But so far everyone who has produced a game has felt that the d20 logo is valuable enough to adhere to the few d20 rules.

What about original material that someone creates, like characters or even whole worlds? The OGL and the d20 rules provide for this. Simply maintain some sort of separation between the original material you wish to retain control of (not make open content) and the d20 rules. You could put a shaded box around it or use a different font. Then, when you create a muck monster, the name of the monster and the description are owned by you, but how it works using the d20 system is part of the Open Gaming world. You can still write a story about your muck monster (and no one else can), and you can import it to another rule system if you wish. You own the muck monster 100%. The only part that is open for others to use are the rules using the d20 system that determine its abilities (things like it armor class or how many dice of damage it does). This means that someone could create the yucky monster and give it the same d20 rules as your muck monster. However, they can not use any of the descriptions of the monster you created, or its history, place in the ecological chain, etc.

I have been asked a number of times if, in my personal opinion, the "d20 strategy" has been a success. People point to all of the products flooding the market and think that this must mean that Wizards will cancel the license because surely we didn't intend for other companies to embrace the system to this extent. Well the answer is: Yes, I think the d20 strategy is a huge success, and yes, that is exactly what we hoped would happen. By Anthony

I can see why the legality is disputed. If I am WotC and see that someone reprints word for word information from a book then perhaps that person won't buy that book and sales will fall. Proving that the site and information is causing a loss in sales is very difficult especially in this economy. Here is the opposite side of the coin. I am a member of a wiki site and publish a complete list of spells siting which books they are in. Another person may be tempted to purchase that book thus promoting the sales. Or even with a word-for-word reprint like Unearthed Arcana another user might buy the book because to some, like myself, books are so much easier to flip thru then online pages. This site wants to go on the side of caution and be very conservative in what information would be out there. If I was doing a research paper and pulled info from any WotC books it would be fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgnlnnc (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 January 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts!

I am not exactly sure what you are wondering. D&D Wiki is, for the most part, all homebrew material; licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3. We only have the source books available which are OGC. I think you are trying to start a discussion about something relating to pirating, which does not relate to D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 13:11, 18 January 2009 (MST)

Someone opened a discussion on a page I created stating that I am not allowed to reprint the names, portfolios and favoured weapons of the Gods listed in the Player's Handbook or any that are product identity under Faerun / Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron or any other Campaign Setting/Product Identity due to OGL. So naturally, I came here. Short of writing WotC myself, I hoped someone here could explain it since I am sure that I am not the only one who has some confusion about this topic. --Kermit 21:23, 18 January 2009 (MST)

I would have to assume that none of the material in questions is made available by the OGL. Try the help section and see if that answers any of your questions. If not, I'm probably not the best person to answer your question. -- Jota 21:40, 18 January 2009 (MST)

I'm using OGC in my own project (see Open20) and I am under the impression that I have to amend the "Copyright Notice" section of the OGL to include references to each SRD I use as a basis for my own SRD. This site gives attribution to Wizards of the Coast and then to a bevy of authors of the original SRD. But no information is given on how to attribute the D&D Wiki itself - is this because the D&D Wiki's SRD is solely a copy of the earlier one, so there is no additional copyright to attribute? Since design elements can be copyrighted (at least in some circumstances), even a direct copy of the SRD may be considered to have copyrights distinct from the original (e.g. the layout of charts). How should I attribute D&D Wiki in my own project? Modrobene 14:21, 18 October 2009 (MDT)

I'll start with the classic line: I am not a lawyer. First, I don't see why you're creating your own project? If you use D&D wiki, why not stay here? Secondly, are you trying to make a OGL game system? If that is the case, WikiRPS is available to be started up and all the leg work is already done. If neither of those are the issue, and you're just wanting to properly site items, the SRD is a WotC site and the coding needs to site D&D wiki and ever editor that a page had. This has recently been discussed here in depth, as having the history meets this GNU requirement. However, when you copy from a D&D wiki page to whatever this project of yours is, you're not copying ever edit and contribution it ever had, so that may be against the GNU.

WikiRPS is not OGC. The SRD is not published by us - it's from Wizards. This should answer your questions. If you are referring to something relating to the GNU FDL that is not this license and should be discussed elsewhere. If wanted I could discuss hosting for you and then you could link to D&D Wiki's SRD through D&DWiki: or who knows what. Let me know if you are interested (comparable to WikiRPS - you would need to deal with the domain name of course...). Of course, since it is a separate website you could use any license you want (GNU FDL is recommend of course, however CC or who knows what works). --Green Dragon 17:43, 18 October 2009 (MDT)

Thanks Green Dragon, that does answer my question. I had looked for something akin to WikiRPS at one point but didn't find it, I will look at it more closely, though I'm not sure it will really meet my needs. Modrobene 19:30, 18 October 2009 (MDT)

I'm talking about your site... That should have answered your SRD questions however if you want your wiki to be hosted I would be more then willing to discuss it for you (free - other then the domain name of course...). It's nice to have a cluster of hosted wiki's (our side) and it's free for you. --Green Dragon 20:09, 20 October 2009 (MDT)

It appears that a recent edit of the 3.5e Open Game Content page appears to be taken whole or in part from my site, the Grand OGL Wiki (DnD Links). The reason I suspect this is because "Steve Russell Presents..." appears on that page. Steve Russell owns Rite Publishing and personally sent me that material to upload on the Grand OGL Wiki. So I think one of your users may have copy/paste that material. If D&D Wiki intends to replicate the Open Game Content from my site here can you make sure that the section 15 for that material appears in your sites open game license. If you wish to contact me about this matter feel free to email me at gedakm@gmail.com. I can put you in contact with Steve Russell if you like as well. -Mark Gedak, DM Sketchpad/Grand OGL Wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrandOGLWiki (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC). Please sign your posts!

On closer inspection of the similarities of our page, 3.5e Open Game Content, and theirs, linked above - it seems like we have most of the bigger names where they go a bit more in depth, and that the random Steve Russell Presents is the only shared link that shows a common history of edit. However, I am really confused as to the request to alter our Section 15 of the OGL. In that same sense, we could argue that the entire website Grand OGL Wiki should change theirs as we existed before them. I just don't understand the real problem here. An OGC game is listed on an OGC page, and that is absolutely fine imho. Hooper talk contribs email 01:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer a bit more.

Saying "attribute D&D Wiki" is a very good question. When section 5 is fulfilled and originally from D&D Wiki (a few examples exist) then section 6 needs to be obeyed.

As per section, 6 I think we need to amend the Copyright Notice with regard to each separate OGC thing we add. For example UA needs a section. I do not think Template:OGL Bottom covers this.

Another question: Do we need written permission (section 11)?

I do not think so. We do not market or advertise the OGC, we distribute it. "(c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;", specifically with regard to "publicly display".

With regard "4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content."

And "(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.", mainly with regard to "distribute".